WENDY MURPHY: Hurting women should be a hate crime

A lot can be said about the recent murder of Amy Lord and the growing crime rate in South Boston, an area once thought to be relatively free from serious violence.

By Wendy Murphy

The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA

By Wendy Murphy

Posted Aug. 3, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Aug 3, 2013 at 3:12 AM

By Wendy Murphy

Posted Aug. 3, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Aug 3, 2013 at 3:12 AM

COMMENTARY

» Social News

A lot can be said about the recent murder of Amy Lord and the growing crime rate in South Boston, an area once thought to be relatively free from serious violence.

Police deserve some of the blame, especially the detective who failed to arrest the suspect in 2012 before he had a chance to strike again and again. But judges and prosecutors bear some of the blame, too, because the guy was arrested in the past - many times - and prosecutors and judges, more so than cops, determine whether a dangerous criminal stays in jail or is allowed back on the street.

Irrespective of where the most blame lies for past mistakes, when violence against women is met with a revolving door at the courthouse, the message goes out loud and clear that women’s lives have little value in the criminal justice system, and in society.

This problem is made worse by lawmakers’ persistent refusal to include “gender” in the list of social classes covered by Massachusetts’ hate crimes law. Other categories such as ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation are covered, but gender is intentionally excluded. This means that if Amy Lord had been killed because she was gay or Muslim, it would have been a civil rights crime, but because she was targeted based on gender, the targeting is legally irrelevant, as is the fact that women are now disproportionately at risk of being attacked in South Boston.

The most embarrassing example of this blatant subjugation of women was on display when high school student Phoebe Prince took her life after relentless bullying. Her tormenters were charged with civil rights crimes because they called her an “Irish” slut. Had they called her just a plain old slut, civil rights charges would have been impossible.

Most states include gender in the list of protected class categories, which makes the fact that the bluest of the blue states is so out of line on something as basic as women’s equal protection of the laws seem especially odd. Similarly perplexing is the silence of groups that should be making noise. Where is the National Organization for Women, and anti-violence groups like Jane Doe? Isn’t it their job to speak out when government officials devalue women’s lives by refusing to redress gender-based violence fairly?

The murder of Amy Lord isn’t a wake-up call so much as an embarrassing example of failed leadership. Governor Deval Patrick has never called for a tougher law enforcement response to crimes against women, nor has he complained about the absence of gender as a class in our hate crimes law. Even Attorney General Martha Coakely, a woman who professes a special concern for gender-based violence, has stayed silent. She knows better than anyone that by leaving gender off the hate crimes list, women suffer the blatant unequal protection of law.

Page 2 of 2 - It’s time for Patrick, Coakley, the district attorneys and all the police chiefs to come together and demand that the Legislature add gender to Massachusetts’ hate crimes statute. With gender as a category, women’s lives will be better protected and cops and prosecutors will have access to more funding, which means law enforcement efforts will be more effective.

While we’re waiting for the Legislature to act, Coakley can and should file a civil rights restraining order against the suspect in Amy Lord’s murder because gender is already a protected class category in the civil rights restraining order context. The guy may never walk free again, but if he does, a violation of the restraining order could mean mandatory ten years behind bars in addition to punishment on the underlying crime.

Issuance of a restraining order also ensures a better public understanding of the nature of targeted violence against women not only because it will bear the “civil rights” label, but also because the case will take on greater significance simply because the Attorney General went to court on behalf of women as a class.

That women have waited so long for their rightful seat at the civil rights table of justice, especially in a place like Massachusetts, is not only embarrassing, it’s deadly dangerous.